• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are the fundamentalists underestimating the cost of their agendas? (part one and two)

Luke 14:34 tells us that salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? Reading this verse, I find myself thinking of the phenomenon of born-again Christianity. I became curious again watching the recent tidal wave of faith-based, morally-centered crusades weaseling their way into politics as usual this year. How many of these people, I wonder, these suddenly successful republicans and members of various fundamentally outraged congregations are in fact reaffirming their faith? Or, are they simply playing an angle that went off better than they could have imagined, in order to advance suspect social or political agendas?

How weird it is to me, watching religion regain this sort of mainstream prevalence and influence. Growing up in the 80's and early 90's, religion in the mainstream was more entertainment, bad entertainment, than anything else. Professional wrestling seemed more realistic at the time. There was even a bad guy manager for a time, Brother Love, whose act at face value at least seemed more sincere than half the histrionics broadcast over cable airwaves, allowing the ministers to purchase items like air-conditioned dog houses. Paying only partial attention at the time (the half due in part to spending the majority of the 80's in parochial school), I watched the whole scene, as men like Jimmy Swaggart and like-minded colleagues folded under media scrutiny into their intentions and pretensions.

It seemed so intriguing at the time to me. It was, after all, the image is everything 80's, and to get a message out, you had to treat the message, and to an equal, but occasionally greater extent, yourself as a product. When the product reached critical mass, the law of averages took over. Somewhere in between preaching and market research, mistakes were made, and instead of defending their faith, they were suddenly defending themselves - in court. The blessing had become a curse. The rock star lives they had chosen produced rock star results, ironically enough, given the amount of time some had spent chastizing rock stars, their antics, and their recordings. Then, just when religion was quietly heading back below the radar, for the most part, another odd phenomenon occured. Strange, huh, that religion seems to have so many phenomenon?

The fallen, having seen proselytizing turn into profitability and then again into prosecution, sat back, took stock of their individual situations, and in some cases, individual tax returns, and did what any self respecting talespin rocker would do - they hit the comeback trail. A little reinvention would be necessary, first. It was all taken in stride, just as the hair metal bands had to go back to the drawing board with the advent of grunge.

We as Christians have to accept reinvention unconditionally. After all, what is giving yourself over to a belief system but the act of reinventing yourself at a spiritual level? Luke 14:26 contains Jesus's words 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple.' Through my own experiences, many people take that passage as a pretty harsh terms of service statement when they hear or read it, despite not quite taking the point with them.

concluded in part two​
(i was about 2,000 characters too long with this one)​
 
While part of me wants to wisecrack about requiring a minimal amount of self-loathing in any religion, I find myself watching these overly civic groups and crusdades and questions can't help but arise. Love of God over family is not only implied, but demanded in Luke 14:26, yet to listen to certain political candidates, including, God forbid, Allan Keyes, the evangelicals and fundamentalists propping President Bush up like a punch-drunk fighter, have all found a loophole. Yep, some people, and I am not naming names here, are just naturals at finding loopholes. Call it a gift from God. I'm sure they do.
The hate in Luke 14:26 is merely implied as 'love less,' the point I had touched upon earlier, yet for some reason, those who would have you believe they get their sanctimony steam-cleaned do not like homosexuals, and the funny part is, they really don't mind coming off as bigoted or hypocritical. Is it simply ignorance, or is it a rampaging misfire from an experiment to create some sort of camera-friendly super Christian?

Watching this dangerously influential movement attempt to circumnavigate the gay and lesbian community can be an experience in itself. In the year 2004, it is a bit of tragic comedy to watch a person acting as though they could convince you, with the help of a colorful pie chart or high-end credentials ("hi, I'm (insert anglo-saxon name here), with the (insert 'family' movement), that homosexuality is airbourne and contagious. Did these people attend sex-ed class in Texas or something?

This is where we get more of a feel for the schemes of those would endeavor to save us from ourselves. Somewhere, rather than come up with solutions to the real problems of society, the evangelicals took a vote on which horribly outdated outrage they could apply the loosest and worst translations of biblical text to, and then to adopt it as a literal belief. Pretty head in the sand way of approaching an issue, huh? No matter what stock answer someone somewhere wrote for the moral groups, in case of such a situation, none of them have quite grasped that in essence, they are trying to take literal a 2000 year-old work of fiction. Me? It doesn't matter how old the book is, or whether or not any one point can be proven as fact. You just can not cherry pick the way you apply the mores of old or new testament life in contemporary society.

Granted, there are exceptions, as there are with everything, really. The Bible says 'Thou shalt not kill." Yes, by all means please take that phrase literally. When you come across helpful tidbits like the coffee you just purchased is hotter than anything taken internally has a right to be, or using a toaster in a bathtub may cause future loss of appliance quality, you should hopefully have been blessed with the common sense not to question the logic behind the statements. How does it seem to work then, that increasing numbers are falling upon homosexuality as a sin, but not taking a hardline stance on other moral instructions like Matthew 5:27-30 or 5:32?

For those who won't be swayed enough to do the research, in Matt. 5:27-30, Jesus advises us that 'anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' Okay, the whole casting stones bit has been played out like Monica Lewinsky laundry jokes, but the implication is clear. Any man who has even just "stepped inside" a gentleman's club, under whatever pretenses, is guilty of this offense, the Seventh Commandment. You know, one of the commandments the highly moral covet so greatly when it comes to public perception of their antiquated family values crusades. Being an ocassional patron of strip clubs, I don't worry about the ins and outs of dogmatics. Am I committing adultry? Technically, no, because I am single. If I wanted to be literal in the sense that many of these groups and crusades are, then yes, but that's just silly. Do you cast out your son for looking at a Penthouse? No. Do you cast out your daughter for plastering her wall with whoever is the flavor of the month? No. Society has moved beyond taking quite that strong a view on something that basically comes down to a matter of semantics. How many people leading charges against strip clubs were at one time either patrons or employees of the same type of establishments?

It all kind of comes back to the cherry picking again. A cherry-picked agenda is simply that, a splintered faction that fails to take the human element into consideration, plus, when people come out, pardoning the expression, as high-value, morally upright, family-oriented Christians, born again or not, the hypocracy involved kind of makes them look like jackasses. Don't you think?

This is where the parable of the tower builder fits in, and rather nicely. If all men are created equal in God's eyes, how can these monolithic, vaguely corporate churches conduct such public relation campaigns, even with gay and lesbian members in their congregations? The pastor and parishoners involved have proceeded to build something without considering the cost. What would a pastor say to the child of gay parents, if asked how he or she can be truly faithful, when the church involved is asking the child to hate her family structure far above and beyond even what is demanded in Luke 14:26?

Take a moment to consider these paragons of virtue, these people who would have you believe their faith is not only steam-cleaned, but folded and delivered daily. It is this section of the faithful holding the clout, in numbers, influence, and most importantly, fundraising, and the ability it gives them to broadcast their hardline beliefs that has made the collaboration of politics and religion the worst possible partnership at the worst possible time.

George W. Bush, the annointed one apparent of the evangelical revolution, has sat back and watched as faith reared its ugly head time and time again, with a gaggle of 'marriage' amendments being passed, as well as loose sanction of some of the most base and craven tactics this side of reality television production. Marriage? Has no one, not even the brain trust on Capitol Hill, figured out that no amount of legislation will protect what is in essence a fifty-fifty shot. The Catholic church, however, daring to use the acceptance of Holy Communion as a wedge issue, is just another prime and sickening example of how fast the gap in the seperation of church and state is shortening. Once the lines become blurred, and religious beliefs are used as shields to try and draw focus away from incompetence and immorality, within a congregation or the very same administration enjoying the spoils of victory, all the while leaning heavily on a faith-based crutch. That kind of manuevering and posturing that creates a foundation for extremely poor public and foreign policy.

For a born-again Christian such as George W. Bush, the parable of the king going to war should have been required reading in his 'faith-based' White House long before he got the bright idea to instigate the quagmire we as a nation are currently facing in Iraq. At any rate, it should have been perused before our President began living in denial and refusing to accept any sense of accountability over the many fiascoes he has led us into. Hell with that, I would personally recommend our fearless (read clueless) leader undertake a complete read-over of the Book of Luke. Just for starters.

The questions come down to perception, both of ourselves as Christians and how we percieve what our faith entails. Jesus knew all about the shame, contempt, humiliation and anguish associated with a life lived in the will of God, and as a result of his teachings, so do we. How do you handle it? Do you get a little self-conscious when a conversation turns to religion? What do you say if asked what faith you practice, even if it's one not typically smiled upon by 'decent society?' Do you find yourself carrying around a stock answer, just in case, in fear of coming off like one of those sickening 'Seventh Heaven' type Christians? If you do, don't worry, cause I doubt you are alone in the crowd.

The problem with perception is made all the more malignant when 'special interest' ministries attempt to combine the law of man and the law of God into a ready template, accessible only to a select population that fits in with their own belief structure, seeing reality as they choose to see it, blurring the edges along the way as need dictates. And it is that kind of murky navigation that landed us in this mess in the first place.

 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
[RANT=Religious]Jesus' kingdom is not of this earth. Yet so many who call themselves "Fundamentalists" try to do just this.

Jesus made a promise: "They will know you are my disciples by the love you have one for another."

It says nothing about defending YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, or using religion to get someone elected. In fact, I think recent events in his name only makes my Lord SPEW.

"Give unto Ceasar what it Ceasar's and unto God what is God's" applies not only to our finances, BUT TO OUR TIME AND ENERGY!

Christians everywhere should repent of playing politics and get down to loving their fellow man! Now THAT is getting back to the REAL fundamentals of Christianity!!! [/RANT]
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I've often wondered where is the spritituality in the current concern with "moral values"?
 
Top